Lot's Wife Edition 5 2024

Lot’s Wife • Edition Two
60
lot’s wife
EDITION TWO

Thank you to our wonderful
contributors!
We are always on the lookout for new writers
and artists to contribute to future editions. If you
would like to get involved, shoot us a message
on socials, email or pop your head into our
office!
Writers
(in order of appearence) Angus Duske, Lucia Lane, Erica Di Pierro,
Chloe Romanowicz, Ash Dowling
Artists
Louie Perez
Editors
Contact us
Angus Duske, Samantha Hudson and Mandy
Li
Email: msa-lotswife@monash.edu.au
Instagram: @lotswifemag
Facebook: Lot’s Wife
Lot’s Wife Office
Level 1 Campus Centre, next to Sir John’s Bar
Disclaimer
Lot’s Wife is the student magazine of Monash Student
Association (MSA). The views expressed herein do
not necessarily reflect those of the MSA, the printers
or editors. All material remains the property of the
accredited creators and shall not be redistributed without
consent.
Lot’s Wife is produced and published on Aboriginal land. We acknowledge the
Boon Wurrung and Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung peoples of the Kulin Nation as the
traditional and continuous owners af the land. Sovereignty was never ceded.
3

Contents
6 - Vale Pete Steedman
8- The making of Lot's Wife
10- Lot's Wife vs lockdown
12- From chaos to harmonythe
birth of Lot's Wife
15- Moonsickness (poem)
18- What's in a name?
22- The burden of proof,-
mathematics, gender
performativity, and delusion
24- Don't look back in anger
(poem)
28 - An ode to an old mate
32- Life in the 60's
34- The history of Lot's Wife
(creative)
36- Winter days (creative)
40- MSA department reports
4 5

Vale Pete Steedman
07/12/1943 - 10/07/2024
Peter ‘Pete’ Steedman passed away a
month ago, aged 80. Mr. Steedman wrote for
Lot’s Wife as well as its predecessor Chaos,
before editing Lot’s Wife between 1965
alongside Phillip Frazer and 1966. His work
on Lot’s Wife in this time, is credited with
not only revolutionising Lot’s Wife but “under
his leadership between 1965-66, Lot’s Wife
was rescued from mediocrity and became
the number one student newspaper in the
country…” which was quite a challenge, by
his own admission, “I can only compare it
with the other top three papers – Sydney
[Honi Soit], Melbourne [Farrago], and N.S.W.
[Tharunka] – the other universities compare
about equally or a bit below but with the
three major papers considering their
expenditure on a fortnightly basis, we’re
working on about a fifth of their budget.”
Steedman’s term as editor came at a time
of radical social change at Monash, most
notably conscription and more broadly
the Vietnam War, and his work on the
paper reflected the concerns of with an
issue dedicated to ‘The Monash View of
Conscription’ published in July 1965, the
second edition published under his and
Frazer’s editorship; and a joint-publication
with Farrago focussed largely on the same
issue. And the success of Lot’s Wife comes
down to seeking out perspectives on issues,
stating that he “never censored anybody…
Everybody gotta go.” and that ethos remains
true to this day.
Conscription’ published in July 1965, the
second edition published under his and
Frazer’s editorship; and a joint-publication
with Farrago focussed largely on the same
issue. And the success of Lot’s Wife comes
down to seeking out perspectives on issues,
stating that he “never censored anybody…
Everybody gotta go.” and that ethos remains
true to this day.
The best tribute to Peter and Phillip’s
editorship, however, can be taken from the
words of their peers in letters to the editors.
For instance in a September 1965 issue,
one student wrote “Lot’s Wife is the most
original and exciting student newspaper
I have ever seen. Congratulations to you
and your co-editor.” Another letter reads
“you’ve been congratulated on the finest
student newspaper in Australia, and it
probably is. The appearance is unusually
professional, the content intelligent, critical,
and provocative.” His influence continued
beyond his term, as a letter a year later
declared the “layout follows naturally in the
Steedman tradition, it is more ordered in
approach and content.”
Beyond Lot’s Wife, Peter continued to
grace the world with his immense talents,
editing for Melbourne University’s Farrago
and numerous other publications including
The Age. He served in Parliament between
1983 and 1984, representing the Division of
Casey, where he was – to use the words of
his colleague, founding editor of Lot’s Wife,
Damien Broderick – “giving the Liberals hell
in federal parliament…”. Following his time
in Parliament, Steedman served as Executive
Director of Ausmusic from 1988 to 1996, and
returned to Lot’s Wife in 1987, 2007, and
2016 for interviews, as “the greatest keeper
of Lot’s Wife stories.”
Perhaps the greatest tribute that can be
paid to Pete Steedman, is his introduction
before a 2007 interview: “He wasn’t afraid of
the powers that be and was one of the best
practitioners of offset tabloid newspapers in
the country.”
6 7

The making of Lot's Wife
Lot’s Wife has taken many forms over the
years, ranging from a broadsheet in 2011,
to the magazine format of today, to the
classic tabloid that dominated most of
Lot’s Wife’s first three decades of publication.
The rationale for these changes came
out of a mix of editors experimenting and
technologically-motivated paradigm shifts
in the printing process, particularly in its
early days when Chaos – the predecessor
to Lot’s Wife – was getting its act together.
The first edition of the nameless publication,
which would become Chaos, appeared
around the Cafeteria and notice boards
of Monash in early 1961, as a newspaper
for the student body that would “appear
every week during term.” The first two editions
of Chaos were short, comprising four
and eight pages respectively. These very
basic editions were typewritten and then
duplicated, with headings and page dividers
handwritten, and would set the groundwork
for Lot’s Wife going forward.
The third edition of Chaos would mark the
first in a series of technological printing innovations,
with the adoption of a multilith
duplicating machine for printing then described
as “a recent revolutionary process
introduced into Australia.” This new technology
would allow for the printing of pictures
and cartoons, and – to the great relief of the
paper’s cophers – was 60% to 70% cheaper
than existing methods. By the start of 1962,
this innovation led to the adoption of the
tabloid format that would become the standard
format of Lot’s Wife for the next twenty-five
years.
The next major innovation to the formatting
would come with another “genuine breakthrough”,
the adoption of Web Offset printing
alongside a slew of changes that saw
Chaos become Lot’s Wife, and is generally
credited to being the brainchild of Tony
Schauble, founding editor of Lot’s Wife. The
change was largely due to a decision by
The Age, who printed Chaos and later Lot’s
Wife, to censor a series of articles in early
1964. Seeking greater freedoms they sought
out a small printer in Waverley, who were
one of the first printing services to use offset
printing – “whereby inked images were
transferred (or ‘offset’) from a metal plate
to a rubber blanket and pressed onto the
printing surface.” A breakthrough that led
to Lot’s Wife becoming “the first colour student
newspaper in Australia.” All of this on
a budget of $5,400 (about $84,000 when adjusted
for inflation).
For the next thirty years, the format and process
for designing Lot’s Wife would remain
relatively unchanged. And while the printers
changed numerous times, sending editors
to many exotic corners of the state from
Shepparton to Koo Wee Rup to Waverley,
the process remained the same. We are fortunate
that this process has been preserved
in articles mainly due to the fact that from
1988 right through until the late 2000s Lot’s
Wife was graced with an array of work experience
students, most of whom wrote of
the traumatic experiences their week with
the paper entailed.
In the course of a single week, the following
would occur – the articles would be
read through and edited “to correct careless
mistakes” before being fed into a word
processor, historically this would have been
a typewriter – a new I.B.M. typewriter held
up the production of a 1970 issue for two
weeks while the staff got their heads around
it – but by the late 1980s Lot’s Wife had acquired
a new-fandangled computer for this
purpose, by the Secretary – and yes Lot’s
Wife did have a Secretary and an Advertising
Manager both paid positions back in the
day. From there they are set out onto photographic
paper, which effectively prints pieces
in one single column which is then sliced
up and arranged on the page to produce
the layout we see in the finished product.
This process usually “entails staying up all
night during layout nights (with rare naps
on a very smelly foam mattress), amazing
arguments with fellow editors, food from
Foodplus (there are only so many microwaved
chicken rolls one can handle)...”
Usually this eye-watering process had to be
completed by 4:00am in the morning, so the
completed drafts could be delivered to the
printers. For a period between 1977 right
through until the early 1990s, this meant a
three hour drive to Shepparton and back
by midday – which considering most editors
didn’t sleep on layout nights can’t have
been terribly occupational health and safety
compliant. O.H.&.S. concerns aside, the
Monash Association of Students – predecessor
to the M.S.A. – debated when the
practice began in 1977, about whether fuel
costs and some level of comprehensive insurance
ought to be covered.
These layout nights continued throughout
the 1990s until the adoption of computer-based
layout software such as Indesign
– which is still used today, and alongside
the adoption of colour printing and the
choice of glossy covers allowed the paper
to morph into the magazine-like format
that we see today. Yet some things haven’t
changed. The editors still pull their hair out
over careless mistakes – usually minor inconsistencies
in certain spelling choices –
and are usually still up in the wee hours of
the morning, albeit staring at a computer
screen rather than covered in bromide – a
range of chemicals used with melted wax
in the printing process – all for your literary
pleasure.
8 9

Lot's Wife vs. Lockdown
The COVID-19 Pandemic, while far from Classes had been moved to an online format
over, shall certainly be remembered in the on Zoom, and most students were now working
annals of history, not only for triggering from home wherever that may have been. The
what is arguably a series of the most prolific social aspects of university life were rapidly
social changes in most of our lifetimes. changing, to the disappointment of many. But,
Almost overnight, we became harrowingly they, like billions of other people around the
familiar with video conferencing software world, took these challenges in their stride. So
and the tanalising prospect of continuing our too did Lot’s Wife.
educational journeys – in whatever stage we Eager to continue to produce Lot’s Wife the
were at – in some form of online state, usually editors took drastic measures “for the first time
from the comfort of our bedrooms. And for in our 56 year history, Lot’s Wife will not be
this, not to mention assorted government’s printed”. In saying this, Lot’s Wife had been
response or lack thereof to the fifth deadliest distributed online since 1996, coincidentally
pandemic in history, will be remembered in the year that Lot’s Wife launched its website.
the annals of history. Yet today I would like What was groundbreaking was the decision
to focus on one particular niche of history. to not print physical copies of editions. This
Whatever happened to Lot’s Wife during practice would continue for the remainder
COVID-19.
of the year. Undoubtedly, Lot’s Wife proved
Allow me to set the scene, the year is 2020 as it always had to be a place for university
– duh – and Dao Hu, Ryan Attard, Austin students to unleash their creative talents, vent
Bond, Milly Downing, Weng Yi Wong, Anna to the world, and arguably most importantly
Fazio, Charith Jayawardana, and Vivien maintain the social cohesion between students
Tranhere are beginning their year as editors that the pandemic had made so vicarious.
of Lot’s Wife. Familiarising themselves with The following year, some old faces and some
the intricacies of InDesign – the software new ones in the form of Ryan Attard, Dao Hu,
used to produce Lot’s Wife – and settling Anvita Nair, Xenia Sanut, Olibia Shenken, Priya
into the Lot’s Wife office.
Singh-Kaushal, Linda Chen, James Spencer,
Their first edition, released in Orientation Kathy Lee, and Anna Fazio returned to campus
Week, in both physical and digital form, and the Lot’s Wife office, where copies of
featuring various contributions from analysis 2020’s only print edition were still to be found
to paintings to poems, many of which on stands in the Campus Centre and Menzies
conveyed the raw emotion and devastation Building. They to would encounter troubles with
that followed the 2019/2020 Black Summer COVID-19 and took the decision both out of
Bushfires that scorched across much of practicality of all the short-term lockdowns that
Australia’s east coast. The first signs of the plagued the first half of 2021 and as a form
next disaster – in an entirely different form. of “reflecting the wider societal shift online”.
By the time this first edition was released, Though by the end of the year, most editions
COVID-19 was beginning to reach Australian would return to an online setting.
shores and precautions were being taken – By 2022, things had returned to relative
O-Fest was cancelled or adapted to occur in normality, albeit with a pandemic still raging
safer environments. When the second edition across the globe, and print editions returned
of the year was released in the middle of to the hands of readers around Monash.
semester two things had drastically changed.
Words by Angus Duske, Art by Beau Donatella (origianlly published Edition Two, 2020)
10 11

From Chaos to harmony: The birth
of Lot's Wife
Monash University is unique – for oh-so many
reasons that I shan’t delve into – but in the
context of student media, Monash’s singularity
lies in the fact that within a fortnight of the
first students stepping foot on the Clayton
Campus – lovingly referred to as ‘The Farm’ –
a student newspaper emerged, which would
become known as Chaos. A letter from an
editor at Tharunka (the publication of the
University of New South Wales) declared
in a letter in a June 1961 edition: “I’d like
to congratulate you and your predecessors
on the high standard that Chaos has so
quickly reached. The majority of universities
– including the University of N.S.W. – didn’t
have any student journal until some years
after their foundation, so Monash has done
remarkably well for itself.”
From humble beginnings, as a nameless
stencil duplicated production of four pages,
By Angus Duske
under the editorship of Ian Dudgeon and
Tony Reyntjes, Chaos quickly took off on
campus. By its second edition, its length had
doubled, it had acquired the name Chaos
had been decided on at a general meeting
– where the reportedly “unusual name
for any newspaper” was chosen for “its
metaphysical overtones” and had absolutely
not “because of its aptness in describing
the state of the University site at that time.
Nor was it, they said, really meant to apply
to the content and arrangement of a typical
university newspaper…” – and a letters to
the editor page appeared, a staple for
Chaos and Lot’s Wife until 2015. By the third
edition Chaos had evolved beyond simple
stencil duplication and graduated to using
multilith duplication printing. By the end of
the first term in May, the newspaper’s 500
weekly copies distributed on Thursday were
often “unprocurable” by the following day.
By the start of the second term Robert ‘Bob’
Hammond found himself as editor – owing
to a peculiarity whereby the Publications
Committee, who had responsibility for
appointing the editors of Chaos and later
Lot’s Wife, to appoint editors on a singleterm
basis though he would hold the post for
two months, before resigning for “personal
reasons” leaving Peter Smart to take up the
task serving out the remainder of the term
before handing over to Richard Lucy and
Curtis Levy in September.
1962 brought with it a range of changes to
Chaos, under the leadership of Curtis Levy,
led to the adoption of a tabloid style, the
influence for the style that would become a
staple of the publication for the next 30 years
is two-fold. One, it was modelled on The Age
because that was in vogue for the day and
conveniently The Age’s printers also printed
Chaos. Two, “despite a much publicised
animosity between the two journals” It seems
to take on some of the elements of Farrago’s
layout.
From June, Geoff Parkin finds himself yoked
to Chaos right in time for scandal to rock the
paper for the first – but certainly not the last
– time. The front cover of the seventh issue of
Chaos for the year appears with a relatively
blank headline reading ‘Chaos Staff Expose’
an insert accompanies the mysterious cover
declaring “No! We didn’t run out of front page
copy. Our grand scheme for a sensational
headline scoop had been cunningly thwarted
by the omnipotent Herald-Sun Newspaper
combine.” The threatened legal action
resulted with the University threatening to
intervene and demand the resignations
of the staff. Though Chaos would weather
the storm, and under Graham Stone would
end “an expansive year… [growing] from a
roneoed sheet (in about 18 months or so)
a full-scale university newspaper recognised
throughout Australia and in many countries
overseas.”
In 1963 under the editorship of Graham Stone,
Curtis Levy and later David Armstrong would
continue to grow in size and readership.
Though Chaos would be regularly subjected
to censorship by its printers who refused
to print among other things the word ‘f*ck’,
and encountered controversy over several
anti-semetic remarks made against a
Professor from the University of Melbourne.
These incidents resulted in blank spaces
littering editions throughout the year. These
controversies led to heightened calls, mainly
in letters to the editors, for greater scrutiny of
12 13

Chaos and discontent amongst readers in general. The editors did their best to repel the
arguments being made in their editorials.
April 1964 brought with it the resignation of David Armstrong, and in his place Ross Cooper
and Ross Fitzgerald were appointed. They too would fall afoul of the same issues as their
predecessors, it was evident that something was going to have to change. In their first
edition, rather than curtail the “revolutionary” nature of the writing within Chaos’s pages, they
double-downed. When The Age refused to print a slew of articles, they simply published a
supplement entitled ‘What The Age Refused to Print’ which included a scathing introduction
written by the editors, which declared “since we have already declared our sympathy for such
writings and therefore feel personally involved, we are seriously considering changing our
printers or resigning unless a satisfactory solution can be reached.”
The events of the next month have become something of an urban legend at least at Monash,
not helped that it was the official explanation on Monash’s website, and was once described
by someone who witnessed said events as “a comic opera version of how it began.” The
legend in short involved a group of students fed up with the sexism and other assorted
bigotry inherent within Chaos, storming the Chaos office and taking the paper for themselves
– a hostile takeover if you will.
In reality, the story is monotonous and Following the release of the sixth issue of Chaos
for the year, at the year’s fourth Student Representative Council meeting, Messrs Fitzgerald
and Cooper were relieved of their position. Depending on who one asks of said event, their
resignations were not the only reason for them being relieved of duty. Discussion points at
that very student council meeting range from the fact “you [Fitzgerald and Cooper] failed to
carry out the policy you put forward in the selection interviews.” to “technical competence
and lack of liaison between editors.”
Whatever the reason, there was now a distinct lack of editors, which rendered the administrative
atrophy of student media at Monash. To fill the void left by the two Rosses, Tony Schauble,
Damien Broderick, and John Blakeley were appointed in their place as provisional editors
but would go on to edit for the paper until May 1965 when they announced their retirement
in the editorial.
As editors, they – to use the words of Damien Broderick in an interview twenty years after the
fact – “seized control of the rag [Chaos] and changed the name, on very similar principles
to those which apply after the liberation of a third-world nation, but with considerably less
justification.” And so it came to pass, that on June 24, 1964 with the publication of its seventh
issue of the fourth volume Chaos would become Lot’s Wife, a name “fraught with significance.”
for a variety of reasons largely to “tidy up” the paper after three and a half years of chaos
– see what I did there – and scandal.
Moonsickness
By Lucia Lane
I’m sure you know a woman who is a wolf
there are more than you think,
but they have to hide it
excuse themselves and dart out of the room
before they ruin brunch
it’s not like the movies
they call it lycanthropy because it’s a disease
an incredibly genetic disease
marked by pain
muscles growing at an alarming rate
skin torn by your own nails
the wolf doesn’t disappear once you turn back
neither does the sickness
fatigue, dizziness and losing consciousness
but most of all
the fear that at any moment
you might turn bloody and fanged again
the legends are right
it usually happens on a full moon, but not always
and the howling
oh the howling
Although the content of the publication, nor the scandal and chaos associated with it, may
not have changed much in the last 60 years, the rest, to use the popular cliche, is history.
14 15

Edition nine, 1999 Edition two, 19774
16 17

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
BY ANGUS DUSKE
What’s in a name? An odd question, but a valid one in the sense that naming something
isn’t quite as straightforward as a proponent of nominative determinism would make it out to
be. In saying that, there’s usually nothing more to it than someone taking a particular liking
to a certain name or some other sort of personal significance of a name. But in the case of
our beloved Lot’s Wife, the choice of name is – to use the words of the men responsible – is
“fraught with significance” and they weren’t kidding with an article from 1990 suggesting
“the name Lot’s Wife has caused more confusion in the history of student newspapers than
anything else.”
At the time, Lot’s Wife’s predecessor, Chaos, which by May 1964 was fully living up to the
nominative determinism imbued in its name – as chosen by students at a general meeting in
April 1961, though any suggestion that the name reflected the state of the paper or Monash
at the time were strongly rejected. And so when its existing editors were removed from their
positions, and replaced by Tony Schauble, John Blakeley, and Damien Broderick, it was
decided in order to “tidy up” the paper, it ought to take a new name, or to use the words of
Dr. Broderick “my cronies and I seized control of the rag [Chaos] and changed the name, on
very similar principles to those which apply after the liberation of a third-world nation, but
with considerably less justification.” Irrespective, after a lot of deliberation – which one article
from 1987 suggests was alcohol fueled – the name Lot’s Wife was decided upon, having
been thought up by Dr. Broderick, who, according to later editor PeteSteedman, “had a thing
about not looking back.”
orders, she was transfigured into a pillar of salt. Why a pillar of salt, no one is really sure,
the Book of Jasher suggests it was because she had previously stolen salt from a neighbour
and this was all some kind of belated punishment – talk about saltiness. As for Lot and his
daughters, they lived an incestuous life in a cave, yet he was later canonised and a monastery
in his honour opened near the pillar of salt that was once his wife – isn’t that just typical.
So now we come to the part where we break down just how “fraught with significance” the
name of this hallowed publication is. Over the years many editors have sought to explain the
name away, and I seek to piece together some of the better explanations for the name. At
least better than Dr. Broderick’s analysis in a 1984 interview: “It is, of course, pure Dada, and
has no further metonym.”
There is an obvious place to start and that is with Lot’s Wife’s core tenet ‘never look back’.
Lot’s wife looked back on the chaos and was turned to a pillar of salt – clearly a warning
against looking back at the mistakes made by Chaos. Or in a more general sense, it is a
warning against nostalgia to quote our founding editors, “in another sense, the title can act
as a warning. Lot’s wife didn’t have the sense to see that she was being given the chance
to escape the bad old days, so she’s probably still gazing in stony affection at the remains
of a culture that had well and truly had its day. Our moral: Don’t let this happen to you, or to
Monash.” A moral that eventually morphed into today’s ‘never look back.’
Moving away from the story itself, there is even symbolism in the pillar of salt that still stands
in Jordan, Messrs Schauble, Blakeley, and Broderick – like many of their contemporaries –
believe in the importance of student media to campus life, going so far to say that a student
newspaper was “one of the pillars of campus society, indubitably, but in a special sense.”,
presumably a pillar of salt though, one that is unburdened with the notions of respectability,
intellect, or preserving the status quo, all of which will crumble with the passing of time. For
they saw Lot’s Wife as stronger than that, preserved for future generations of students by
pushing the envelope, to make what they wish of Lot’s Wife.
The significance doesn’t quite end there, there’s all the significance of salt, a 2020 editorial
suggests that “perhaps the greatest lesson to learn from Lot’s wife is to be salty.” Then
there is the argument that the salt is there to keep us all painfully aware of the underlying
significance of things in our everyday lives – such as the name of this very publication. Or
failing that, perhaps the name was just chosen to describe the way student media adds a
little bit of flavour to the occasionally bland existence of university life, after all salt makes
most things better.
Finally, an interpretation of Lot’s Wife’s name that has emerged in the last 25 years, is based
on its core tenet and the objectification of women in the early years of Chaos: “Lot’s Wife
Lot’s Wife is a name taken from a legend that persists in all three abrahamic faiths, and
for the most part serves to explain an eponymously-named pillar of salt present on the
Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea. The story of Lot, and his family, can be found in Chapter
19 of the Book of Genesis, Chapter 19 of the Book of Jasher, and Chapter 51 of the Quran.
In short, Lot and his family lived in the city of Sodom, which, along with the neighbouring city
of Gomorrah, was soon to be destroyed by the wrath of God – in what can only have been
a moment of heavenly rashness – akin to the biblical equivalent of a carpet bombing.
Having sent two angels forth to do His bidding, they threw themselves on Lot’s hospitality
for the night before getting to work the next morning. However, before they could settle in,
a mob of xenophobic locals turned up and demanded Lot turn the angels over to them. Lot
refused, instead offering his daughters, who the mob rejected. Gracious to their host, the
angels allowed Lot and his family to flee so long as they did not look back on the fire and
brimstone they were moments away from raining down upon the cities.
As they were fleeing Lot’s wife – named Edith in the Book of Jasher – decides to look back
upon the chaos that was enthralling the two cities, and in punishment for failing to follow
18 19

is so named as a warning, to not look back upon the sexism and objectification of women
as occurred in the newspaper Chaos.” The content of Chaos was certainly of its time being
described as “a laddish newspaper”. Yet the inherent message even within the tale of Lot is
clear, here is an unnamed woman who is punished for disobeying an order meanwhile her
canonised husband can get away with incest. So perhaps, as an editorial from 2020 suggests,
“naming the magazine Lot’s Wife is a tribute to all women – and other marginalised people
– who have been silenced and ignored by history.”
At the end of the day, what Lot’s Wife is, and the significance of its name is purely, what you
make of it, after all “trying to determine the significance (or lack thereof) of the title reads like
a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ of interpretation.” So perhaps the only question is what was
the name of the woman who is the wife of Lot?
20 21

THE BURDEN OF PROOF: MATHEMATICS,
PERFORMATIVITY, AND DELUSION
Good Lord! They are appraising me!
– Lady Elizabeth Murray, Belle
GENDER
When The Mates walk in, I avert my gaze and tuck my hair behind my ears. To my left, a
friend prints a title, pauses, erases, rewrites. To my right, another checks the volume on their
tablet, mutes, un-mutes, then mutes again. The group behind us, mere seconds ago debating
the effect of water on excretion, watch their inhibition walk through the door and take its
rightful place in the front row. Seven minutes have lapsed since most students convened
for today’s class, but a workshop in the absence of bright young mathematicians is one of
absolute futility. To this, I unequivocally agree.
The workshop commences. My attention cycles between the digital clock on the wall, the
question a peer is asking that I too pondered but could not ask, and the indignant, spirited
brunet remarking to a less enthusiastic, taller blond that he had indeed “already learned
this”; had “solved the problem already”; had “said that before”. Periodically, the professor
poses a challenge to his budding first year disciples, or so I am told, by the lewd shuffling
of paper, the neurotic clicking of pens, and the rightful union of pencil meeting paper, as
students scrambling to feel the hit of braggadocio, of a real win – an analgesic to soothe the
wounds of past competition, and an amphetamine to set the mind alight with pride.
I scribble down an answer and my friend and I compare our proofs; we conclude that mine
is correct, but not right. The professor wanders around the room to peer awkwardly across
shoulders and appraise the work of his students, and to be efficient he does not bother
with ours. When he asks if anyone would like to share, his chagrined expression betrays the
openness of this call to action. From my seat in the dark, I try every language that he might
recognise, but nothing can draw his attention; the words hang in the air, wailing from the
shadows, dancing on my lips like an incantation. To him, I return a meek, unknowing stare.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that women students are not included in this democratic
call to the likes of any one, that psychosocial smallness as a spiritual practice is but a minor
formality to be observed by those granted the enormous privilege of access. I am writing
to remind that, in a social and political context that promulgates for theoretical inclusion
but is broadly ignorant of praxis, the apparent mainstreaming of deviance and relaxation
of social mores rebrands hierarchy as more benevolent, perhaps, but changeless, eternal,
appropriate, and arising out of ourselves. This process of shifting marginality ever so slightly,
diluting subgroups systemically deprived of rights and privileges into individuals, is arguably
more dangerous than its predecessor precisely because of its deniability.
For any woman mathematician to claim citizenship – the right to be permitted into masculinised
academic spaces – they must assume (tacitly, or not so) the mantle of policing the borders
against those who do not conform to the standards of the ruling class to the same extent as
they might. When we force women and femmes to internalise these oppressive standards
of assimilation and accommodation, we render even the expression of feminist issues an
exercise in navigating privilege, in policing the right to critique, express anger or fear, ask
for help, and have our pleas heard. The fabrication that women, by way of speech and
temperament, can achieve greatness, disenthrall themselves from the clutches of patriarchy,
and advance equality and diversity for all women, tricks us into viewing adversity as characterbuilding,
and confidence as a form of self-work that each woman must undertake to respect
themselves for not succumbing to unfavourable circumstances, and fly the flag for all women.
It is under this injunction that I write, to achieve my self-respect, to invite an invasive tourism
of my reality (though curated), and to provide the only material that can elicit the attention of
those otherwise unenthused – obscene imagery of violence and derivatisation.
Tacitly or not so, The Mates carefully monitored the progress of the entire class, though
performed to appear entirely disenthralled by the relationships of power that discursively
organised the classroom, and the mechanisms that shaped the construction and distribution
of intellectual authority among students. The Mates were just as preoccupied with the forces
that be as their less socially revered male classmates – The Technophiles – and their women
peers, but they understood that any versions of ephemeral, counterfeit power afforded to
other members of the class would ultimately leave their real power uncontested. In truth,
The Mates would check those attempting to exceed the intellectual or social boundaries of
their status, ensuring that they always won what one member described as “the war” – this
crusade, I take it, was one of gender.
Interestingly, The Technophiles felt entitled to repeatedly co-opt the proofs and solutions
developed by women students as their own. Women mathematicians, punished and praised
for their work and their temperaments, learn to valourise injustice as a simple fact of their
being. To steal from The Mates is to violate the very institution of mathematics; to steal from
women, however, is not merely to put work that would otherwise be wasted to good use, but
to participate in a political and pedagogical system that naturalises women’s labour to exist
solely for the purpose of appropriation.
I recall one notorious collaborative session with a Technophile in which a fellow woman
student and I were subjected to repeated physical and psychological attacks, involving an
object thrown at my head from behind. Dehumanised himself, the Technophile felt not merely
enabled but compelled to dehumanise a peer – to theatrically consummate a set of political
beliefs. This display of male chauvinism, likely stemming from The Technophile’s sense of
himself as powerless and ineffectual in relation to the ruling male class, attempts to signal
common ground (that being a propensity for domination) between himself and his classroom
superiors, and be reassured that his dominion is legitimate, corrosive, and venerated by men
of greater social standing. This is, of course, a delusion.
BY ANONYMOUS
22 23

Note from the author:
This essay drew inspiration from a literature review by Luis A. Leyva, which references a
2000 ethnographic study by Mary Barnes. Barnes explored production of two competing
masculine subgroups (which Leyva dubbed “The Mates” and “The Technophiles”) and the
dynamics of authority within a collaboration-based advanced high school calculus classroom
in Australia, discussing “the social construction of mathematical competence, and ways
in which mathematics is valued” (pp. 145). Barnes, Mary. 2000. “Effects of dominant and
subordinate masculinities on interactions in a collaborative learning classroom.” Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, 145–169. Levya, Luis A. 2017. “Unpacking
the Male Superiority Myth and Masculinization of Mathematics at the Intersections: A Review
of Research on Gender in Mathematics Education.” Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 48(4): 397–433.
DON'T LOOK BACK IN ANGER
By Erica Di Pierro
Don’t look back in anger they say, but I’ll look back in rage. I can never let things go without
a fight, you can say I beat a dead horse until it’s back to life. Knowing deep down I can’t go
back, no matter how hard I fight fuels me with an indescribable amount of fury, bashing the
door psychotically pleading to let me go back in time.
In the moment it’s euphoric, it feels like forever swearing that change will never happen to
me, things will stay the same forever. Even when I know there’s a deadline. Even when I know
there’s a return flight.
Don’t look back in anger, can I look back in delusion? Live with my eyes closed so I can
pretend nothing has changed, just live inside my memory. My neck is so tired from looking
back in hindsight, please let this door open, please let me go back. How can I not be angry
when I’m haunted by ghosts of people that are still alive, there’s a cinema behind my eyes
replaying their faces, replaying my memories.
Time you are a cruel, cruel person for never allowing us to go back, I always find myself
sobbing at your feet like a toddler. But you’re not a mother and you won’t comfort me. So the
ache sits in my stomach, I’m so angry.
24 Edition sixteen, 1975
25

Edition twelve, 1967 Edition six, 20044
26 27

We couldn't possibly overlook one of the most iconic (read:
infamous) moments in Lot's Wife history.
In 1977, Monash student Peter Costello wrote the following
article praising Compulsory Student Unionism.
He would then go on to be the Treasurer of the Howard
Liberal Government who scrapped it.
28 29

Edition one, 20130/07/2024 Edition thirteen, 19874
30 31

LIFE IN THE 60's
BY CHLOE ROMANOWICZ
The 1960s was a time of political turmoil, yet a time of never-seen-before economic growth. Green
paved the streets, so different to the rubble grey of the Vietnam War. It was a time of colour television
and TV dinners; in a time where colour divided and united. It was a time of
commercial innovation, and a hungry public consumerism that matched this – where Cool Whip and
Coke in Can fed filled stomachs. It was a time of transcendence; everything was moving fast. It was
about right here, right now. Social policies were ever dynamic- shifting
with the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, and a dead president. The Hippies hated the
government. The bourgeoisie were now richer, but still middle class.
Life was changing. Art was changing. No longer exclusive to the sphere of the rich and powerful,
artwork before the 1960s- labelled as a form of ‘cultural capital’ by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu-
was shoved aside by an avant-garde movement which catered to the masses. Inspired by the Civil
Rights Movement, artwork changed to become more relatable- elements from comic books, colourful
advertising, and pulp fiction, which were available to all classes, saturated the art styles of the 60s.
The anti-establishment ethos of the youth, and the scars left from WW1 & 2, had accumulated into a
fired-up public dissatisfied with art that failed to acknowledge the huge
sociopolitical changes in their lives. Documentation – an element of art that used media such
as photography and text to provide social commentary- became a prevailing force in the art world.
The “New Media Framework” of art embraced the use of unconventional materials and methods
-such as collaging, photographs, and scrapbooking- to disestablish a common, yet exclusionary view
which emerged from Europe in the 18th century – that only ‘fine art’ was ‘true’ art. Most importantly,it
relocated the locus of artistic integrity from raw visual effect to the artist’s intent, which dissatisfied many
supporters of the previous decade’s artwork- critic Clement Greenberg lambasted these changes,
arguing that “What counts first and last in art is quality, [and] all other things are secondary”.
The puppeting hand of patron also changed identities. Previously, private patrons were the majority
funders of artwork, meaning that art appreciation was skewed towards the rich. However, with the
economic growth of the 1960s came a young and progressive ‘technocratic’ generation well-versed
in academia but poorly subscribed to the nuances of
the brush. Here swooped in the critics. While art of previous generations had been commissioned
on the basis of appeal to the buyer, critics were now the ‘middleman’ between buyer and creator.
It wastheir judgement which greatly influenced a piece being bought or not. This transference of
power, combined with the eagerness of the technocrats to prove their cultural literacy, set the
stage for the emergence of atypical, eye-catching art styles. Though not nearly as significant,
government interventions, such as the US’s creation of theNational Endowment for the Arts in
1967, also helped “foster access to the arts for people ofmany different kinds''.
With the combination of social rift and a changing culture of purchase, Artwork these by Spencer avant garde Slainey styles
-Minimalism, Pop Art and Feminist art, and secondly, Op Art, Concept Art, and the ‘Colour Field’ style-
32
Art by Spencer Slaney
became dominant in the art world. New age artists were united in their distaste towards the “Abstract
Impressionism'' of the 1950s, criticising that the “action painting” which defined it was too personal
and thus disallowed artwork from creating its own meaning. Yet, this was merely one common
denominator amidst a world of creative differences – styles differed in their origin, inspiration, and
principles of creation. Here, we gointo the most era-defining styles -Minamalism, Pop Art, and Feminist
Art.
Minimalism- defined as artwork consisting of geometric design, simplistic form, and straight edgessought
to shun depiction of an ‘outside reality’ and rather present ‘its own reality’. Emerging in 1960s
New York, its creation was due to the accumulation of ‘reductionist ttendencies’ in modern art, and the
belief that art had become too ‘academic’ in depicting reality from a solely photographic perspective.
Pop art was divided into two schools: British, from where it’s genesis in the “Independent Group” –
a group of Londoner’s enamoured by 60s American pop culture - sprung forth, and American. Both
schools agreed with pop artist Richard Hamilton’s classification of Pop Art as “Popular, Transient,
Expendable, Low cost, Mass produced, Young, Witty, Sexy, Gimmicky, Glamorous [and] Big business”.
Both took stylistic features from comic books, pulp fiction, and advertising, through using defined
black lines and bold primary colours. They depicted household products in an age of rampant
consumerism – from Vacuum cleaners to Campbell soup cans.
Yet, compared to British Pop Artists, American pop artists more readily embraced iconography, serial
reproduction, and the theme of war. They first-handedly responded to the social trends around them.
In comparison, British Pop Artists were more proactive in their use of collaging, and their works were
often infused with elements from both American pop art and American pop culture. Dissatisfied with
the under-representation of women artists in exhibitions, galleries, and private collections in the 1960s,
Feminist artists sought to reclaim their place through distinguishing their art style, use of materials,
and message from the conventional art of that time, through using traditionally feminine materials
and crafts to convey a feminist message. This was achieved through the media of pottery, weaving,
textiles, as well as paint on canvas. Artists of the time, such as Judy Chicago, sought to redefine the
meaning of the female body from its previous sexualised role, through works such as ‘The Dinner
Party”, which celebrated the accomplishments and heritage of prominent women, while displaying
ceramic moulds resembling their genitalia- thus emphasising the coexistence ofachievement and
physical form.
Unignorably, there were momentous shifts in the art world during the 60s. With the advent of
huge social and political change, and the emergence of younger, ‘new wealth’ patrons, the
influence of 1960’s art is still seen today.

The History of Lot's Wife
By Ash Dowling
Looking back had turned Lot’s wife into a
pillar of salt,
But she returned as a magazine, as a new
name for Chaos,
A reincarnation, a second Genesis,
(Her name was a cautionary tale,
But she ignores that part).
Now, she looks back again
Over sixty fiery years of life,
Surviving the wrath of God and man.
For the first ten years, her daughters stayed
In corners, letting her sons take centre stage.
Was it by their own choice,
Or does free will become muddied when
Society speaks lies like a serpent
Into innocent minds?
But in 1974, Sue Mathews became
Lot’s Wife first female editor, and
The image of God was made more complete.
Sue was appointed to editor by the
State Government, who held absolute power
Over whom would edit the Lot’s Wife,
Making themselves a part-time God,
Until 1983, when the student body finally
wrested
Power from the state and shared
It between themselves like bread and fish.
I wonder whether people would have
Cared so much about Jesus multiplying food
If Uber Eats had existed back then.
Miracles are less magical in a digital world,
But poetry, prose, and art are still just as
magical
And suddenly they could travel
Around the world like angels and dip in and
Out of time like an omnipresent God.
Years later, I read a poem from
Volume 10, No. 5, May 8, 1969,
‘Some people would live in their own
Ketchup if you’d let them’.
Luckily, we don’t always let people
Do what they want. Sometimes we do,
But sometimes we make them pay
University student organisation membership
fees,
Until 2005, when Howard and Costello made
This voluntary too and the student unions
Worried that they would be swept away
In a wave of apathy for campus culture or
Maybe just financial necessity. Did Costello
Feel bad putting his daughter’s dignity
And life on the line? But Lot’s Wife stood her
ground.
In 2007, her dignity was challenged again,
By an MSA muzzle, to stop a broad
Potentially defamatory mouth from biting
Certain people. They tied her to a leash
And dragged her along. Maybe if God had
done that
To Lot’s wife she wouldn’t have turned
Into a pillar of salt, but God lets us
Make our own fateful choices.
I think God liked Lot’s Wife new logo of 2015,
He is no stranger to controversy
And he always loved Lot’s wife’s spirit, her
Strength, her confidence. Perhaps he
Lamented that she did not use it for good,
But that was the risk he took.
He reads Lot’s Wife now, I’m sure, and smiles
Seeing that she is just as bold as ever.
34 35

On days like these, when the air is so cold
it bites at your face and hands, and your
breath is visible before you, one cannot
help but think of the past. Amelie had
always been the type of person to prefer
the past. There was something comforting
in its solidness, something reassuring
in the fact that everything had already
happened and that she, as an observer
from the present, could look back on it
without having to make the same decisions
all over again. It wasn’t just her own past
she liked. As a child she buried her head
in books and spent her recesses and
lunches immersed in Ancient Rome and
Greece, World Wars and revolutions, while
everyone else around her played tips.
Lately though, Amelie didn’t want to think
of the past. Because thinking of the past
reminded of her, and Amelie was really
trying very hard not to think of her. It was
usually silly little things that would send
Amelie reeling back. Just the other week
a song playing in Coles delivered her
Winter Days
By Anonymous
back to the night she first met Bea. Amelie
hadn’t meant to go out that Wednesday,
but somehow come midnight she found
herself on the sticky dance floor of some
student bar, beer going warm in her hand
as she stared unashamedly at the lead
singer of the band playing covers. There
was just something about her, something
that Amelie couldn’t quite put her finger
on, that made it impossible to look away
as she twirled and jumped and flicked her
sweaty curls out of her eyes.
She hadn’t expected it when, after the
set had ended and Amelie’s friends had
disappeared out back to the smoker’s
area, Bea eased up beside her and asked
to dance. So Amelie took Bea’s hand, and
then, after some hours, her number. Bea
said goodbye with a gentle kiss to the side
of Amelie’s mouth and a teasing reminder
to text her.
It took Amelie three days and roughly
27 draft texts, typed out in her notes
app, before she finally bit the bullet and
messaged Bea. They had their first date
in the botanical gardens, on one of those
warm March evenings when the sun still sets
late and everything feels possible, the world
stretching out indefinitely before you. She
kissed her down by the banks of the Yarra,
and it took three days for the stupid smile to
finally wear off her face.
Many more dates followed, punctured
with sleepless nights staying up talking to
each other, baring their souls. By June they
were official. Amelie learned that Bea had
always wanted to be in a band and didn’t
really care much for her degree – she was
just doing it to appease her parents. She
seemed so sure in her point of view – so
certain that she would be a singer. There
was no doubt in Bea’s mind and Amelie
wished she could be a little more like that.
She learned that Bea had been writing
her own songs and sometimes she was
lucky enough to hear them. In turn Amelie
showed Bea her stories, confessed quietly
that what she wanted most in the world was
to be an author, but wasn’t sure she’d ever
escape the guilt that was pushing her to do
something more meaningful with her life.
She met Bea’s friends, her parents, her
brother and sister. She sat through countless
lunches and dinners then breakfasts,
watching Bea surrounded by the people
who loved her, the way her face would
light up when she realised she’d made
one of them laugh. She learned to love the
organised chaos that seemed to surround
Bea’s life. The way she could never forget
a friend’s birthday, but could never seem
to remember where she’d put her keys. All
these things Amelie remembered no matter
how much she didn’t want to.
Most of all she remembered the nights
they would spend together lying in the
same bed. Bea curled up on her side, Bea’s
thumb softly stroking the bottom of her ribs
just below her heart, as she pulled Bea
veven closer into her and their legs tangled
beneath the sheets. In those moments, just
before they drifted off into sleep, Amelie felt
so safe and secure and known, that it was
impossible to conceive that anything could
ever come between them.
And, without warning, sometime recently
something did. One day they were in love
and then the next Bea was staring at a spot
on the wall just by the side of her head,
telling her that it was over, that it wasn’t that
she didn’t love her, it was just that it wasn’t
what she wanted anymore. Amelie didn’t
say anything, didn’t fight, didn’t plead,
didn’t cry, just simply stood up and walked
out and away leaving Bea still sitting at a
table in their favourite café. She was numb
for two whole days before it hit that Bea
had left her. Then she didn’t get out of bed
for a week.
Yes, Amelie had been the type of person
to prefer the past. Bea had taught her to
appreciate the present, to want for the
future. Now that she was gone, Amelie didn’t
want to think about any of it – didn’t want
to be reminded of their past together, of the
future that she thought they’d have. Didn’t
want to look back on their history and figure
out what went wrong. Somewhere, deep
down inside of her, she knew that the pain
would pass, and, just as the winter turns into
spring, she’d be able to look back on this
and appreciate all the joy it had brought.
For now though, that day hadn’t come, and
she would have to be careful about going to
Coles for the milk, just in case a song came
on and she suddenly found herself crying in
the aisles.
36 37

Edition nine, 1969 Edition four, 20174
38 39

Looking back had turned Lot’s wife into a
pillar of salt,
But she returned as a magazine, as a new
name for Chaos,
A reincarnation, a second Genesis,
(Her name was a cautionary tale,
But she ignores that part).
Now, she looks back again
Over sixty fiery years of life,
Surviving the wrath of God and man.
For the first ten years, her daughters stayed
In corners, letting her sons take centre
stage.
Was it by their own choice,
Or does free will become muddied when
Society speaks lies like a serpent
Into innocent minds?
But in 1974, Sue Mathews became
Lot’s Wife first female editor, and
The image of God was made more
complete.
Sue was appointed to editor by the
State Government, who held absolute
power
Over whom would edit the Lot’s Wife,
Making themselves a part-time God,
Until 1983, when the student body finally
wrested
Power from the state and shared
It between themselves like bread and fish.
I wonder whether people would have
Cared so much about Jesus multiplying
food
If Uber Eats had existed back then.
Miracles are less magical in a digital world,
But poetry, prose, and art are still just as
magical
And suddenly they could travel
Around the world like angels and dip in
and
Out of time like an omnipresent God.
Years later, I read a poem from
Volume 10, No. 5, May 8, 1969,
‘Some people would live in their own
Ketchup if you’d let them’.
Luckily, we don’t always let people
Do what they want. Sometimes we do,
But sometimes we make them pay
University student organisation membership
fees,
Until 2005, when Howard and Costello
made
This voluntary too and the student unions
Worried that they would be swept away
In a wave of apathy for campus culture or
Maybe just financial necessity. Did Costello
MSA DEPARTMENT
Feel bad putting his daughter’s dignity
And life on the line? But Lot’s Wife stood
her ground.
REPORTS
In 2007, her dignity was challenged again,
By an MSA muzzle, to stop a broad
Potentially defamatory mouth from biting
Certain people. They tied her to a leash
And dragged her along. Maybe if God
had done that
To Lot’s wife she wouldn’t have turned
Into a pillar of salt, but God lets us
Make our own fateful choices.
I think God liked Lot’s Wife new logo of
2015,
He is no stranger to controversy
And he always loved Lot’s wife’s spirit, her
Strength, her confidence. Perhaps he
Lamented that she did not use it for good,
But that was the risk he took.
He reads Lot’s Wife now, I’m sure, and
smiles
Seeing that she is just as bold as ever.
MSA DEPARTMENT REPORTS / EDITION FIVE 2024
PRESIDENT: CHLOE WARD (SHE/THEY)
Hey Everyone! I hope Semester 2 has started off as well! There are so
many exciting things happening in the MSA! We have fought to reduce
late penalties from 10% to 5%, the new MSA Pantry has officially opened
and provided students with fresh free food, we have run some of the
biggest events this year so far, and there is so much more to come!
We are continuing to work hard on our Parking campaign and pick up
a bumper sticker at SURLY to show Monash that you disagree with the
monetary extortion of students and staff. Finally, we are continuing to
advocate for ‘universal submission times’ at 11:55PM for students to help
take the burden of remembering submission times off students. Stay tuned
for more exciting updates and can’t wait to see you all at our next MSA
event!
SECRETARY: ZAREH KOZANIAN (HE/HIM)
No report received from this department.
TREASURER: JOSHUA WALTERS (HE/HIM)
No report received from this department.
ACTIVITIES: FATIMA IQBAL (SHE/HER) AND RAAGE NOOR (HE/HIM)
No report received from this department.
CREATIVE & LIVE ARTS: GINA FORD (SHE/HER) AND HAIDER SHAH
(HE/HIM)
No report received from this department.
DISABILITIES & CARERS: GERARDIEN AFIFAH (SHE/HER) AND
CHARLOTTE SUTTON (SHE/HER)
We are back for another semester, with more beginner Auslan sessions
to kick off the semester. We have also been fortunate to have Helene Hill
attend as a speaker for the Menstrual Health panel during Safe n Sexy
week, to represent the chronically ill perspective.
Advocacy projects continue including the passing of the Tertiary Education
Roadmap motion. We have begun conversations with the Buildings &
Properties Division on how physical accessibility issues can be better
40 41

MSA DEPARTMENT REPORTS / EDITION FOUR 2024
resolved. We hope these conversations will soon result in tangible changes
soon.
As always if there is anything that you would like to raise or that you need
support with, please email msa-disabilities@monash.edu"
Upcoming events:
• Auslan Beginner: 5th September
• Auslan Intermediate: 5th September
• D&C Teas: Thursdays 10am D&C Lounge
• Silent Disco 29th August 8pm
EDUCATION (ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): NAOMI DREGO (SHE/HER) AND
GRAYSON LOWE (HE/HIM)
Semester 2 has started off on a positive note, with several important
developments and opportunities. Academic Progress Committee Hearings
are ongoing, and we continue to seek volunteers to assist with these
hearings. This is a great chance for to get involved and support your peers,
and we are so grateful to our existing of volunteers who help with these.
Additionally, as you may already know the university has made changes
to the late submission policy, reducing the penalty from 10% to 5% per
day submitted past the due date. This adjustment provides a welcome
relief to students who may need extra time to submit their assignments.
Lastly, we are well on the way towards teaching awards with semester
1 nominations having already opened, and semester 2 nominations to
open soon. These awards are an opportunity to celebrate our outstanding
educators who make a significant impact on our academic journey.
EDUCATION (PUBLIC AFFAIRS): SAHAR FARUKH (SHE/HER) AND NAFIZ
ISLAM (HE/HIM)
No report received from this department.
MSA DEPARTMENT REPORTS / EDITION FOUR 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE: SOPHIE ALLEN (SHE/HER) AND
THOMAS WHITE (HE/THEY)
Our sustain festival was a massive success! The day was full of games,
laughter, vibes and eco education. We'll be finishing up the year with
some behind the scenes work regarding sustainability and activism at
MSA but there may be some things in the works as the semester comes
to a close!
INDIGENOUS: MARLLEY MCNAMARA (SHE/HER)
No report received from this department.
PEOPLE OF COLOUR: ANSHUMAN DAS (HE/HIM) AND TOOBA JAVED
(SHE/HER)
We are currently in the planning stage for the 'One World' event, working
closely with other team members to ensure its successful execution in
October.
Our primary objective this semester is to provide support to other faculties,
societies, and students as needed, as we do not have any major events
scheduled ourselves.
This semester is intentionally more relaxed, allowing us to focus on these
supportive roles. Additionally, we are making progress on the Racism
Report as stated in our previous reports, which will be published in the
near future and will include comprehensive data gathered from students
on campus who have experienced discrimination of any sort.
QUEER: MADI CURKOVIC (SHE/HER) AND KELLY CVETKOVA (SHE/HER)
We have had a wonderful, tireless year organising and promoting left
wing activism and fighting for the oppressed.
We helped organise the Gaza Solidarity encampment, bringing together
hundreds of Monash students, experienced and new, to fight for
Palestinians.
We led and are continuing a campaign to increase the number of genderneutral
bathroom options on campus, and to hit back against transphobia
on our campus. We all need to Pee!
We hosted a plethora of events showcasing the history of our struggle as
Queer people for our rights, and how these fights have intersected with
other sections of the oppressed.
42 43

MSA DEPARTMENT REPORTS / EDITION FOUR 2024
Some highlights include our Radical Queer History Panel, which brought
together legends of the Gay Liberation Movement of the 70s with the
generation of today, and our screening of the film 'Pride'.
Free Palestine, Madi and Kelly
RESIDENTIAL: ARIQ ILHAM (HE/HIM) AND AYLIN VAHABOVA (SHE/
HER)
No report received from this department.
WELFARE: CAMPBELL FROST (HE/HIM) AND TEAGAN HAYWARD (SHE/
THEY)
No report received from this department.
WOMEN'S: ZOE BINNS (SHE/HER) AND KATYA SPILLER (SHE/HER)
Helloo MSA Women's community!!! We have had an absolute blast
running safe and sexy week!! I am writing this as we speak watching
our clay work shop create beautiful mugs!! We've had everything from
menstrual health panels to dance expression classes. We transformed the
conference room into a beautiful chill out activity space and Loreal ran
their street harassment campaign. MSA Women's is blown away by our
beautiful community, we thank you all for coming along to our events and
we hope to see you again soon in the future. Thank you to the beautiful
SRSU team for making this all happen, we are eternally grateful!!!
MSA DEPARTMENT REPORTS / EDITION FOUR 2024
MATURE AND PART TIME STUDENTS (MAPS): STUART GIBSON
No report received from this department.
MUISS - VEDANT GADHAVI
We have been working with the university towards the implementation of the recent
foreign cap. We have been recently starting with weekly study sessions at the MUISS
Lounge and have been having the Welfare Lunches. We are also planning to host a
Day Trip soon so keep checking the muiss.monash page on your socials.
We are also collaborating with MSA POC for a grand One World Fest where we will
be having international clubs as well as some exciting music, games and food on
the day.
RADIO MONASH: GEORGIE MCCOLM (SHE/HER)
Radio Monash has had an epic start to the semester! We had O-Day across two
campuses, with two days at Caulfield and one day at Clayton. We got to interview
over 15 clubs at Clayton on O-day, and have signed up so many new members. We
have our subcommittee's up and running and plenty of show applications, so make
sure to tune into radiomonash.online this semester to hear from our amazing show
hosts. Our journalism department has also been pumping out incredible articles that
you should check out ASAP.
CLUBS & SOCIETIES: PAUL HALLIDAY (HE/THEY)
C&S has hit the ground running in Semester 2, beginning with our successful involvement
in the Semester 2 Orientation Festival during week one. The event showcased over 60
clubs and attracted more than 3,000 students learning about the vast range of clubs
at Monash.
The first few weeks of semester new club applications closed with C&S receiving
significant interest from students. The C&S Executive is currently in the process of
reviewing and shortlisting these applications, with successful new clubs expected to
launch later this semester.
Club Awards Night is scheduled for the 21st of August. This event celebrates the clubs
at Monash and the incredible student Office Bearers who volunteer to run them. It
is an opportunity for C&S to recognise the clubs who have gone above and beyond
in various areas with awards recognising innovation, good governance, high-quality
publications and accessible and inclusive events.
The rest of the year is also very busy, with the C&S Annual General Meeting, more
events for club leaders and supporting clubs in servicing their members.
44 45

46 47

By Louie Perez
48 49

HAPPY 60TH
BIRTHDAY
LOT'S
HERE'S TO MANY MORE!
Edition five, 2024